On Tuesday the 12th, two posts riddled with ‘Big Fat U*U’ in them. Nineteen, to be exact.

But, curiously, on Wednesday the 13th, three posts with no recurrence of that – but plenty of lashing out and vague attacks.

You would think that someone with a difference of opinion over how an organization is run would respond to the retirement of its chief administrator with an optimistic note on the possibility of positive change. No, Robin Edgar has to take more pot shots at Kay Montgomery.

And you would think that, if you talk repeatedly about ‘pedophiles and rapists’ in an organization, you would actually name some, as Robin Edgar had promised to do in his ‘New Year’s resolutions.’ Again, no such luck. Robin Edgar prefers instead to be provocative and sensationalistic – or, should we say, ‘deliberately rude and offensive’?

Robin Edgar keeps demanding that the UUA listen to him. Tell me, Mister Edgar, when you repeatedly describe them with terms like ‘douchebaggery,’ among other insults and perseverations, how do you expect them to take you seriously?

If this latest spate of manic attacks demonstrates anything, it is that Robin Edgar has no interest whatsoever in reconciliation or justice – only in lashing out and drawing attention to himself.

Once again, Robin Edgar has made another list of resolutions on his ‘Emerson Avenger’ blog, all related to his obsessive need to try to bring down Unitarian Universalism for failing to stroke his ego.

The first two are to be expected; he claims that he will ‘hold accountable’ the UUA and their Canadian law firm for their civil actions against his continual harassment and defamation. How? Golly, could we see yet more picketing and rage-filled screeds? After all, the only time he took legal action, with the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal, his complaint was dismissed for lack of merit. Still, we shouldn’t be surprised if he attempts some sort of counter-suit.

But the most outrageous on his list of resolutions is as follows:

Blog about at least two other well documented cases of Unitarian Universalist clergy or U*U Religious Educators who have actually been charged with, and convicted of, engaging in the despicable crime known as pedophilia.

We have seen this before, with his relentlessly repeating rants about former UU minister Mack Mitchell. The man was turned in by members of his own congregation, suspended from ministry during legal proceedings, and formally stripped of his ministerial credentials once convicted. But no, this isn’t good enough for Robin Edgar. Apparently he wants ‘U*U justice’ to be impossibly swift and sure. Would it help, Mister Edgar, if the Ministerial Fellowship Committee traveled back in time to undo everything? Considering his obsessive desire to hold grudges, we wouldn’t be surprised if even that was not good enough for him!

For all we know, the cases he’s talking about could involve people reported to the UUA by active UUs, and acted upon promptly and properly by both UU officials and law enforcement. It could also be that these are cases from long before the UUA had learned its lesson and implemented better policies for dealing with issues of professional misconduct, and for which the UUA has apologised and made restitution.

But, as we have seen before, nothing the UUA or any UU minister or leader could ever do will ever satisfy him. His self-defeating efforts are but sad attempts to bring down an organization and a movement devoted to compassion and forgiveness – something which, from what we can tell of his statements and behaviour, he seems very sorely lacking. It is a shame that a man with such energy must waste so much of it lashing out at a religious community instead of moving on and trying to build something better. Remember, also, this is a man who has refused to promise to remain non-violent in his so-called quest for ‘justice’. All we can do, sad to say, is remain vigilant and hopeful that he will not escalate into something much worse.

Aside from becoming more maniacal in his postings, Robin Edgar has begun to focus (or fixate) on yet another issue: Unitarian Universalists and sex.

Freud would have a field day with this man.

Robin Edgar has become more explicit, almost to the point of vulgarity, in trying to use sex as yet another means of discrediting UUs. Of course, he picks what will fit his biased obsession of ‘UUs bad’, even to the point of highlighting outdated and uncorroborated material.

Basically, he is utilising the same methods he had before, only on a more sensitive topic. Not to mention failing, once again, to propose any positive solutions (compared to many UU bloggers who have made specific suggestions for dealing with the problems of the past).

Still, it should surprise nobody that Robin Edgar is now doing this. He has made tasteless sexual allusions before, not to mention his obsessive puns around anuses, and his repetitive use of ‘kick in the balls’. What’s unusual is his shifting from juvenile toilet humour to puritanical judgments about sex.

Then again, it is hard to predict what this disturbed man will do next…

In our previous post, we mentioned (among other things) that Robin Edgar has resorted to defamation as part of his continual harassment of Unitarian Universalists.

We would anticipate that he would, once again, angrily insist on knowing how exactly he has defamed the UUA. So we feel compelled to explain in advance.

Robin Edgar has repeatedly alleged that the UUA and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee engaged in a ‘cover-up’ regarding sexual assault charges against Reverend Mack Mitchell in 1991.

Not only was Mitchell reported to police in 1991 by members of his own Northborough church, and not only was the matter covered in news media, but the MFC promptly investigated the matter and voted to remove Mitchell from ministerial fellowship, as reported by the UUA’s Information Officer at the time.

So, Mister Edgar, where is this ‘cover-up’ of which you are alleging? Did the UUA attempt to silence the press, or refuse to comment on the matter? No, on both counts. The press covered as they should, and the UUA reported that they followed their procedures for reviewing the evidence and removed Mitchell from their roster of ministers.

And yet, you have continued to accuse the UUA of a ‘cover-up’ in the matter. The facts have been brought to your attention which contradict your accusation, and what do you do? You persist in making the accusation.

That, sir, is defamation!

You can use whatever rationalizations you wish to justify such irresponsible statements, but the fact remains that you made a baseless allegation calculated to discredit a group, and when once made aware of the facts to the contrary, refuse to retract your statement and indeed keep repeating it.

Robin Edgar tries to position himself as the moral judge for Unitarian Universalist ministers and leaders. His hypocritical actions demonstrate that he has no business doing so.

Unitarian Universalists are not afraid of reasoned and constructive criticism. We learn from it, and grow as a faith movement because of it.

It is another thing altogether, however, when a petulant egotist makes it his mission to try to our faith by citing anything and everything negative he can find, twisting it and exaggerating it, as part of a vindictive campaign of vengeance and self-aggradisemnt.

Robin Edgar continues to do so, and it is utterly shameful.

In his most recent “Emerson Avenger” post, he cites a sermon by Reverend Lynn Strauss, on the topic of clergy sexual abuse within the UUA and its member congregations. He points to her frank discussion of the history of sexual abuse, and the poor way in which many congregations dealt with the matter. Then, in quoting her statement that “There is no more tolerance for misconduct” within the UUA, he pronounces that this is “questionable” and goes on to state that, in his experience, this is not the case.

He continues to claim that the UUA has made no progress in handling the issue, that the policies put into place after years of soul-searching discussion and research amount to nothing. His proof? He offers none. He simply repeats his self-centered assertion that, since he wasn’t satisfied with the way that the UUA handled his complaint of “clergy misconduct,” the UUA has done nothing on the issue, and needs in his view to be vilified and slandered.

Reverend Lynn Strauss specifically addressed sexual abuse and misconduct. Robin Edgar continues to try to convince people that the “abuse” and “misconduct” he allegedly “suffered” from UU clergy is somehow to be equated with the trauma and betrayal of sexual abuse.

Reverend Lynn Strauss points to specific progress in how the UUA and its congregations handle sexual abuse. Robin Edgar claims it is not enough, and. following his absolutist line of thinking (see our post of June 1: Robin Edgar’s Rules of Self-Righteousness) “not enough” might just as well be a “Big Fat U*U zero*.

All to fill his ego. All to continue to whine and yell that his allegations against Reverend Ray Drennan were never addressed to his satisfaction. All to excuse abusive and immature behaviour on his part.

When Robin Edgar continues to distort the truth, to claim that all forms of abuse and misconduct are equally bad, all to make himself the victim and to rationalize how he lashes out at UUs, all while accusing UUs of being liars and hypocrites, he is showing what a liar and a hypocrite he is.

When he does so without providing any constructive alternative to what he perceives is wrong, he shows that he has no real intention of making things better. He only wants to destroy, like a spoiled brat wrecking another child’s toys out of jealousy and rage.

Robin Edgar claims his actions are in keeping with UU traditions and principles. Wrong. Distorting and ignoring truth, undignified ad hominem attacks, and egotistical demands that everybody else stop what they are doing to pay attention to him, run completely counter to UU principles.

Wasn’t it Karl Marx who argued that “quantity has a quality all its own”? Then perhaps Robin Edgar is attempting to apply Marxist theory to his “Emerson Avenger” blog.

In the past day, he has posted three times. Does he believe that drowning us in more repetitious ranting will somehow make more progress than his years and years of childish attacks and insults? Or perhaps he’s in one of his particularly more manic and obsessive phases?

Robin Edgar’s first post is yet another rage-filled attack on anybody who dares to critcize or question him without revealing their names. Do tell, Mister Edgar, why you will not then reveal the name of the UU minister whom you allege praised you as “prophetic” by way of “electronic communication”. You, sir, who love to condemn hypocrisy, perhaps you should look in the mirror.

Then Robin Edgar tries once again to compare the Unitarian Universalist Association with the Roman Catholic church with regard to sexual abuse by clergy. He quotes Kay Montgomery’s admission of how the UUA had fallen short of dealing with the problem, but in a way which strongly implies that nothing had been done. Ms. Montgomery’s words were said at a UUA General Assembly ten years ago, and since then both the UUA and the UU Ministerial Association has done considerable work in addressing the issue, including measures to screen out potential abusers. Oh, and while we’re at it, perhaps Mister Edgar forgot about the letter addressed to him by a group of sexual abuse survivors a year ago. (see our March post: Abuse Survivors to Robin Edgar: You Don’t Speak for Us)

Robin Edgar’s last attack is directed to Meg Riley. As she laments the recent tax-cut package ratified by the US Congress, he asks why the UUA did not organize the kind of resistance which she had wanted to see. Perhaps he is unaware that the US Constitution’s separation of church and state severely limits what religious denominations can do in response to specific legislation. Then again, perhaps he is aware, but chooses to ignore the fact because it would spoil yet another chance for him to lash out at UU ministers, and therefore continue to nurse the grudge which he has been carrying for close to two decades now.

Worse, he believes that, because the newspaper website on which he posted his comment to Riley calls for “civil, thought-provoking and high-quality public discussion”, and because they left his comment on (for now, at least) that he can call the totality of his juvenile attacks in this light. Yet another example of Robin Edgar’s self-centered and warped view of reality: he is all good, UUs (and especially UU ministers) are all bad. Even when he tries to qualify such statements with the word some, he feels compelled to bracket the qualifier in asterisks (strange that he can figure out all sorts of computer tricks, but italics and bold-face elude him) as if to show off: “See, I’m not as extreme as those boneheaded Big Fat U*U asshats would have you believe!” Since you’ve failed to notice, Mister Edgar, UUs don’t need to make anybody else believe such things about you, as you have successfully done so yourself.

There is no quality in Robin Edgar’s written ranting and raving, no matter the quantity he turns out. He is merely repeated the same tired complaints and insults. Unfortunately, he doesn’t stop at his computer keyboard (assuming that he actually has a computer of his own) but feels the obsessive need to harass Montreal Unitarians on the street, in a vain attempt to make himself feel utterly right and righteous. “Look at me! Look at me! I’m protesting! I’m making them look bad! That makes me look good, right?”

Wrong, Mister Edgar. But you just go on believing that your antics actually mean anything. Go on believing that being deliberately annoying and insulting (your own words) will actually accomplish anything constructive. Go on harassing, stalking and bullying people who are wise to how mean-spirited and disturbed you truly are.

Recently, Reverend Daniel Harper posted some constructive criticism about the UU Ministerial Association’s ethical guidelines. He pointed out that, with the phrase that a minister should “strictly respect confidences given me by colleagues and expect them to keep mine” there could be legal and ethical issues in cases involving clergy misconduct.

Robin Edgar’s take on this? Well, remember Robin Edgar’s Rules #2 (everything in black and white) and #3 (any bad news about UUs is proof that UUs are bad). So if one minister has a specific, well-thought criticism about specific wording of the UUMA’s ethical codes, then it’s not only true, but a justification for him to accuse all UU ministers of being collectively corrupt, incompetent and stupid.

Robin Edgar likes to boast that he’s been criticizing UU “injustices, abuses and hypocrisies” for years. Setting aside the fact that many of these “criticisms” stretch the bounds of credibility, not one of them is constructive. His only “positive” recommendation that we can see is to allow any complaint against any minister to be renewed an indefinite number of times, regardless of whether there is any evidence to support it. Why? Because in his black-and-white mindset, UU ministers deserve to be attacked and harassed without end, as he has been doing for so many years, even after retirement and death.

We are glad that Reverend Harper and the First UU Church of Nashville has raised this issue, and join them in urging the UUMA to refine the problematic wording. There’s a big difference, however, between such constructive criticism and the hyperbolic attacks of a disturbed and obsessed individual with no positive solutions to offer.

In response to our latest blog post, we received a copy of this letter. The authors had asked the Unitarian Church of Montreal to forward this to Robin Edgar in December of 2009; whether or not the church did so, we cannot say. Suffice it to say, Robin Edgar continues to compare his “victimhood” to those who have been tragically used and abused by others. As the letter’s authors have requested, we are publishing its contents in full.

We are a group of survivors of sexual misconduct by Unitarian Universalist clergy and other leaders. Some of us are still involved in UU groups at different levels, others have left. We do not claim to speak for all survivors, but we believe ourselves to be a representative group.

We have taken the time to read your blog and comments on other sites, and the comments of other UU bloggers. Having maintained personal connections with one another, we have come together out of mutual concern to share our own impressions and observations. We do appreciate your support in raising awareness of the issue of sexual misconduct by UU religious leaders, and how UU organizations and leaders have responded to complaints and concerns. We also empathize with how you have been mistreated by some within UU circles.

That is what makes this letter so difficult, for the evidence we have seen tells us that you are far from blameless yourself. Whatever abuses have been directed your way, we cannot see how they justify the level of abuse which you have heaped on others. Whatever shortcomings UUs may have, they do not deserve the level of rancor which you have been directing at them over the years.

You demand moral perfection from UU ministers, leaders and writers – a level of perfection which you yourself have fallen far short of in your words and deeds, frequently lashing out at others, often for no reason than just being UU. Worse yet, when this is brought to your attention, not only do you admit to being rude and insulting, but you respond with a level of self-justification which reminds us all too painfully of the same rationalizations our abusers gave for their acts against us.

You claim to speak for all who have been abused by unethical UU leaders. Whenever you speak of such, you always bring it back to your experience, your victimhood, and your grievances. Whether you intend to or not, you have made us feel that our concerns are merely a tool for your own personal agenda – another painful reminder of how those who sexually and emotionally manipulate and abuse try to make it seem like they are the ones being used and excluded.

We and other survivors have worked long and hard to improve the situation within UU organizations. We are not in full agreement as to the level of progress, but we do believe that some progress has been made. Some of us maintain contacts with UU leaders to continue this work – and we have found ourselves torn between appreciating your support and experience, and having to distance ourselves from so many of the things you say and do.

We believe that you do not intend to hurt us, that you share our sense of indignation and desire for justice. But even a noble sentiment can get twisted into something hurtful, and unfortunately we have come to see that in your case. One example of this is your pattern of tracking down those who doubt or disagree with your methods, and lashing out at them to the point of harassment – this is the main reason why we have declined to put our names to this letter.

We are respectfully asking that you no longer speak on our behalf, and consider how painful your actions have become. We say this to you with out of empathy and compassion. We know all too well how pain can lead to rage, how the desire to set things right can become distorted into a lust for personal retribution. But we have also come to know the joy and peace of healing, of letting go and moving on. We can only hope that you will begin that process yourself.

Our message to the letter’s authors: Thank you, and our own wishes for healing and happiness.